Mana occupies a singular position in the depth-psychology corpus as the conceptual bridge between primitive energic experience and the modern psychological category of libido or psychic energy. Jung’s treatment is foundational: drawing on Codrington’s ethnological reports from Melanesia, Lehmann’s classic monograph defining mana as ‘the extraordinarily effective,’ and parallel concepts such as the Sioux wakan, the Australian arunquiltha, and the Malayan badi, Jung argues that mana is not an abstract idea but a ‘representation’ rooted in participatio mystique — a pre-reflective perception of charged relational power inseparable from its object. He reads it as the direct forerunner of the psychological concept of energy, a phenomenal rather than theoretical apprehension of psychic force. Jane Ellen Harrison, approaching from classical scholarship, situates mana within pre-animistic religion, linking it to thunder-rites, taboo, and the sanctity of weapons, while Hubert and Mauss (cited by Jung) propose mana as a foundational cognitive category underlying Western notions of substance and cause. The concept reaches its most developed depth-psychological form in Jung’s elaboration of the ‘mana-personality’ — the archetype of suprahuman power that the ego risks inflating into when it appropriates the energy previously held by the anima or animus. This constellation of usages — ethnological, energic, and archetypal — makes mana one of the most theoretically loaded terms in the library.